 |
Where were all the "sons of God" (supposedly the godly Sethites)
when the flood came?
Noah, a preacher of righteousness,
preached for 120 years;
what happened to all the descendants of Seth? |
I’m glad you feel strongly about this subject.
You may like to share your understanding of 2 Pet 2:4-5 and Jude 6 and their
connection with Gen 6, if any. This will be a good study exercise for us all.Others who are interested to study/search the said scriptures, take a look here
:
https://things-new-and-old.blogspot.com/2022/11/the-angels-that-sinned-2-pet-24-5.html
Try answering the simple questions. I'm only asking
questions to aid self-learning. I'm not teaching anyone anything. That's the way to
study and learn the truth.
Ask your own questions too;
you will if you are thinking. I will
answer them.
Thanks.
=======
Brother Sing,
These are my thoughts.
1. I don’t believe the term ’sons of
God’ always refers to angels. I believe it is sometimes referred to as men. (2x in
Gen, 3x in Job, 1x John, 2x Rom, 1x Phil & 2x 1John) and singular form, son
of God is used for Adam (1xLk)
2. The implication
of our understanding of Gen 6:4 bare children to them will be either
(i) children born
out of angel and human activities.
(ii) children born
out of human activities, compromised values.
It is possible for a man/woman to engage in sexual activities with demons but it is unlikely to
have human offspring. I dare not go this far.
3. The connection
between Gen 6:1-6, 2 Pet 2:4-6 and Jude 6 may be interpreted as 3 separate events,
linked only by their sins and judgment from God. To say that Gen 6:2 refers to
angelic/demonic activities that transgress their first estate (Ju 6) is
speculative and doesn’t fit the term first estate. This may imply there is a
subsequent transgression by angels distinct from Satan’s rebellion.
4. God’s judgment in the worldwide flood may be the most severe because of the sinfulness of man.
Partly due to the longevity of man during the pre-Flood period. Gen 6:3 "his days
are 120 years". I take this to mean man’s days will be shortened, but there is a
second interpretation of a warning of 120 years before the flood.
5. The state of man is
still the same, total depravity Rom 3:10-18. Man’s history is still repeated, in
society and the church, of cycles of revival and slow decline until God’s
judgment came upon them. Annihilation of Canaanite nations, delayed by 400 years
after the promise given to Abraham. Destruction of Jerusalem AD 70 because of the
Jewish treatment of Jesus Christ and his disciples/Christians. The destruction
of the Northern and later Southern kingdoms after repeated warnings from God.
These followed similar patterns of impending God’s judgment upon mankind.
6. The current state of
vileness and sinfulness is curbed/restraint due to Satan being bound. Still, we
see sinfulness and vileness committed behind closed curtains.
===========
Dear Brother Sang
Thank you most
kindly for putting your thoughts into words. “Writing makes an exact man.” Permit me to leave some comments after each of your 6 points.
1.
I don’t believe the term ’sons of God’ always refer to angels. I believe
it is sometimes referred to men. (2x in Gen, 3x in Job, 1x John, 2x Rom, 1x
Phil & 2 1John) and singular form, son of God is use for Adam (1xLk)
---------
a. We are in complete agreement here:
- I ALSO don’t believe the term ‘sons of God’ ALWAYS refers to angels.
- I ALSO believe that the term SOMETIMES refers to human beings (God’s
children), necessitated by context.
- I have NOT come across one theologian/bible student who believes that the
term ALWAYS refers to angels.
- However, I have come across not a few who insist that the term cannot refer to angelic beings, BUT ALWAYS to godly men only.
b. The term “sons of God” in its plural form occurs 11 times (KJT) as enumerated by you.
- 2 times in Genesis (6:2,4)
- 3 times in Job (1:6, 2:1, 38:7)
- 1 time in the Gospels (John 1:12)
- 5 times in the epistles (Rom 8:14,19; Phi 2:15, 1 John 3:1,2)
All the 6 times in the NT, the context requires the term to refer to
regenerated/born-again elect.
Bible students commonly understand the 3 occurrences in Job as a reference to
angelic beings.
For the two occurrences in Gen 6, bible students are divided; most ancient understood them as angels who had taken upon themselves human nature; most of the less ancient folks take the term as a
reference to the GODLY descendants of Seth.
c. “son of God” in the singular form occurs 48 times in the KJT
- 1 time in the OT (Dan 3:25)
- 28 times in the Gospels (8 in Matthew, 3 in Mark, 7 in Luke, 10 in John)
- 19 times in the rest of the NT
- Of all these, 46 times refer specifically to Jesus, the incarnate Son of God.
- Daniel 3:25 refers specifically to an angel (see 3:28), and Luke 3:38 refers
to Adam, who alone is not a son of man; he was not procreated by another man
but created by God. Even so, the angels are “sons of God” by virtue of being
created by God. Some, because of pride, were cast out of heaven unto the earth.
- Jesus, the Son of God, the Word made flesh, is ALSO a spirit Being who
took on flesh and blood.
2. The implication of our understanding of Gen 6:4 bare children to them will be either:
(i) children born out of angel and human activities.
(ii) children born out of human activities, compromised values.
It is possible for a man/woman to engage in
sexual activities with demons, but it is unlikely to have human offspring. I
dare not go this far.
You have stated the two ALTERNATIVE views of Gen 6:1-5.
The necessary implications of each view are many and diverse. We will look at
some of them as we go along.
(i) children born out of angel and human
activities.
- But first, let us be a little precise.
- Angels and humans DO NOT procreate. Angels are spirits, and humans are flesh
and blood.
- But the ‘sons of God’ are some of the fallen angels that have assumed human nature,
unlawfully and contrary to God’s law governing angelic beings. When they have unlawfully
assumed human nature, they are real and true human beings, and they procreated themselves
with the daughters of men.
- We know, with abundant biblical evidence, that the elect angelic beings can, and do, take on
human flesh and blood when they are doing the errands of God. Heb 1:14 "Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heir of salvation?" Read about the
angels who ministered to Abraham (Gen 18), and Lot (Gen 19), etc.
Jesus, the Son of God, is also the Divine spirit-being who has taken upon
himself flesh; “the Word was made flesh.” The Word was a spirit, just as God is
spirit, before His (the Word) incarnation.
The Word was made flesh – He, too, left the spirit realm and entered the realm
of flesh and blood.
- Heb 2:14 ¶ Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood,
he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might
destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil.
The ‘sons of God’ are those who left their first estate, their OWN HABITATION
and entered the human habitation of flesh and blood… with the sole intent to totally
corrupt the whole human race so that it would be destroyed, THUS to thwart the
appearance of the Seed of the Woman who would crush the head of their Chief,
Satan.
- They LEFT their first estate and entered ANOTHER and DIFFERENT estate; they
did this with a definite purpose, to completely corrupt the human race so
that the just and righteous God would be constrained to destroy it.
- These fallen angels, leaving their first estate willingly and purposefully with
the sinister design, are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from Satan and his host, being sacked
and cast/driven out of heaven because of their sin pride.
Not a few theologians/bible students glibly insist that “their own habitation”
and “their first estate” refer to their residence in heaven. Assuming that is
true, the necessary implication is that they voluntarily and purposefully LEFT
their residence in heaven, THAT IS, their sin is their voluntary act of leaving
or forsaking heaven! Those angels must be oxymoronic!
- But NO, they were cast out of heaven; they resisted their casting out.
(ii) children born out of human
activities, compromised values.
- When we read “And it came to pass… “ in Genesis 6:1, the NATURAL activity of
human procreation has been happening for at least 15+ long centuries.
- Sons
of men and daughters of men have been coming together as husbands and
wives; BOTH sons and daughters were born to them. The clause “… and begat sons and
daughters” occurs 13 TIMES in Gen 5, describing the procreation activities of
mankind.
May I ask:
- What “values” were compromised?
- Were “values” compromised over those 15+ long centuries?
Gen 6:2 speaks of the union of the sons of God and the daughters of
men, distinct from all that had gone before, i.e. sons of men and daughters of
men in natural procreating activities.
- Supposing the 'sons of God' WERE godly men as imagined, and they married
ungodly women. Don’t you think it strange that the inspired Scriptures would call those men with such ungodly character with such a lofty term, “sons of God”? What a
contradiction! Did God make an obvious mistake, or does the fault lie with
man’s senseless interpretation?
In the first 15 centuries, “the sons of God” were not in the picture of the
procreating activities of man. Everything went on smoothly as commanded, “be
fruitful and multiply.” Sons of men and daughters of men were coming together
for 15+ centuries – all was natural and normal in a fallen world.
- The ‘sons of God’ came into the picture ONLY in Gen 6, AFTER 15+ long
centuries.
- The devastating effects of the union of the sons of God and the daughters of
men were infinitely worse than “compromised values.” Read Gen 6:5 “And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that
every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.”
Are these words of Divine diagnosis describing godly Sethites with compromised
values, OR describing whole mankind drowned in absolute and universal moral
corruption?
If it were just “compromised values”, why DIDN’T it happen during the 15+ centuries before? Did the same happen during the long centuries AFTER the
flood?
- Would the LORD God destroy the whole world because of the “compromised
values” of the fallen human race, or because of something infinitely worse as described in Gen 6:5?
It is possible for a man/woman to engage
in sexual activities with demons, but it is unlikely to have human offspring. I
dare not go this far.
It’s possible in mythology and 'pontianak' folklore only.
NO, it is NOT POSSIBLE for a man/woman to engage in sexual activities with
demons (spirit beings) or vice versa; sexual union between them is not
possible; no offspring is possible. They exist in different habitations –
angels in the spirit realm, and man in the physical realm; they occupy different estate.
For the fallen angels to have sexual activities with the daughters of men, they
MUST FIRST LEAVE their own habitation in the spirit realm and enter the
habitation of man, THAT IS, taking human flesh and blood upon themselves.
3. The connection between Gen6:1-6, 2Pet2:4-6
and Ju6 may be interpreted as 3 separate events, link only by their sins and
judgement from God. To say that Gen 6:1 refers to angelic/demonic activities
that transgress their first estate (Ju6) is speculative and doesn’t fit the
term first estate. This may imply there is a subsequent transgression by angels
distinct from Satan’s rebellion.
==========
The passages MAY indeed refer to “3 separate events” as you have suggested.
What then are the three events?
Where are they spoken of in the Scriptures?
Here is 2Pet 2:4-6 (KJT)
4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and
delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
5. And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher
of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;
6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with
an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live
ungodly…
Here is Jude 6 (KJT)
And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own
habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the
judgment of the great day.
Note the similar description of the judgment upon the angels that sinned:
- “… but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to
be reserved unto judgment…”
- “… he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of
the great day.”
The similarity is too striking to dismiss that they are not speaking of the
same event. Please note that Satan himself is not mentioned; Satan was not involved.
Only some of the fallen angels are involved, and they sinned in the way described in
Jude 6; and they suffered the judgment stated: they were cast down to hell, and
delivered into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment.
2Pet 2:4 states that the angels that sinned were not spared but severely
judged;
Jude 6 describes in what manner those same angels have sinned; they kept not
their first estate, i.e., they didn’t remain in their first estate; their
action caused them to end up in a second/another estate. They left their own
habitation; they ended up in another habitation NOT their own.
Apostle Peter and Jude were writing to Jewish recipients; they knew their
Jewish recipients were familiar with is being said, WITHOUT any FURTHER
elaboration. Why? Their Scriptures tell them exactly what happened in Gen 6.
2Pet 2:4 is followed immediately by this:
“… And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher
of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly.
The angels that sinned and the effects of that sin were intimately related to
the destruction of the old world by the flood recorded in Gen 6.
It is logical and common sense to conclude that Gen 6:1-6, 2Pet 2:4-6 and Jude 6
are all speaking of the same matter.
"This may imply there is a subsequent transgression by angels distinct from Satan’s rebellion."
Consider these things:
(i) Satan was CAST OUT of heaven down UNTO the earth (Rev 12:9) at the initial rebellion...
(ii) Satan was bound and CAST INTO the bottomless pit (Rev 20:1)
(iii) Satan was CAST INTO the lake of fire at the end of time, Rev 20:10.
(iv) Some angels that sinned were CAST DOWN to hell and delivered into chains of darkness, reserved unto the great judgment day (2Pet 2:4, Jude 6).
You equate (i) and (iv) as the same.
Let me elaborate a little.
c (i) Satan was CAST OUT of heaven down UNTO the earth (Rev 12:9) at the initial rebellion...
- What happened? Pride was the original sin of Lucifer.
- Before being cast out of heaven, Lucifer was a high-ranking, majestic, and wise angel; a cherub who held a position of great authority and perfection. He was created sinless but fell due to pride, desiring to elevate his throne above God.
His sin of pride and condemnation are stated here:
1Tim 3:6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
The 3-verse paragraph of Rev 12:7-9 gives a glimpse of this account.
7 ¶ And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
The fact that there was a war in heaven obviously implied that Satan and his angels RESISTED being OUSTED. They wanted to remain in heaven but were no longer fit because of their sin - "neither was their place found any more in heaven."
It is like Adam and Eve needed to be DRIVEN OUT of the Garden of Eden, Gen 3:24, and securely guarded the garden – cherubims with flaming sword.
Satan and his angels were EXPELLED, CAST OUT of heaven DOWN to the earth.
c (ii) Satan was bound and CAST INTO the bottomless pit (Rev 20:1)
- When did this happen? It happened at Christ’s first coming and as a result of His redemptive work. This happened at the BEGINNING of the 1000 years.
Christ’s work of redemption curtailed and restricted the power and influence of Satan, described in Rev 20:1-3.
1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.
2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years
3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.
“THAT he should deceive the nations (ethnoi – people groups/nations) no more.”
- Before Christ’s work of redemption, except the Jews, all the other nations were DECEIVED.
- After Christ’s work of redemption, God’s redeeming work is revealed to all nations. Rev 7:9
Rev 20:3 declares that Satan MUST BE LOOSED a little season “till the thousands should be fulfilled.”
- The 1000 years refers to the long but definite period spanning the two comings of Christ; the starting point was His first coming and the terminal point will be His second coming. “A little season” is negligible in the context of the long 1000 years.c (iii) Satan shall be CAST INTO the lake of fire at the end of time, Rev 20:10.
- In Rev 20:3, Satan shall be loosed a little season…
- Then he shall be cast into the lake of fire. GAME OVER for Satan. The redeemed are forever and immutably delivered from him.
- This SHALL happen at the END of the symbolic “1000 years”, at Christ second coming and during the great and final judgment.
c (iv) Some angels that sinned were CAST DOWN to hell and delivered into chains of darkness, reserved unto the great judgment day (2Pet 2:4, Jude 6).
The two passages are grievously misunderstood by not a few CLUELESS and CARELESS Bible students… even though the recipients of the epistles understood what was said without further elaboration by Peter or Jude.
Many, including some apparently intelligent folks, flippantly equate this with the original sin of Lucifer stated above in c(i).
If a man has an ounce of common sense, he can readily see that these two passages are speaking of the same event, and it is an entirely different incident from the sin that got Lucifer and his angels cast out of heaven down to the earth. But common sense is uncommon today.
The sins involved were completely different, and the consequences/condemnations were completely different, too. Aren't they SO OBVIOUS!
Thus, the question: Do you consider the sin that got Lucifer/Satan and his hosts CAST OUT of heaven unto the earth (Rev 12), and the sin that got the angels that sinned CAST DOWN to hell and delivered into chains of darkness, reserved unto the great judgment day (2Pet 2:4, Jude 6) to be one and the same sin or are they two distinct and separate sins?
If they were the same, what are some NECESSARY implications?
4. God’s judgment in the worldwide flood may
be the most severe because of the sinfulness of man. Partly due to the
longevity of man during the pre-Flood period. Gen 6:3..his days is 120 years. I
take this to mean man’s days will be shortened, but there is a second
interpretation of a warning of 120 years before the flood.
a. Yes, the judgment came because of the sinfulness of man.
- Gen 6:5 give the divine assessment: “And GOD saw that the wickedness of man
was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart
was only evil continually.”
This begs a question. What CAUSED this complete and universal moral corruption to happen in the whole of mankind
You suggested, partly due to longevity; i.e. the longer men live, the more
corrupt they get.
However, this absolute and universal moral corruption is traced back to what’s stated in
Gen 6:2, “That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair;
and they took them wives of all which they chose.”
- The moral corruption was not attributed to man’s longevity. The procreation
activity of man had been going on among fallen and sinful men, naturally and normally, without issues, for over 15+ centuries, with nothing unusual happening.
THEN the “sons of God” came into the picture of the procreation activities of mankind.
- What kind of offspring come from such unions?
- Were there such unions (i.e. sons of God and daughters of men) in the
previous 15 centuries?
Gen 6:4 tells us:
“There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the
sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them,
the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.”
- “those days; and ALSO after that”: those days when the sons of God came in
unto the daughters of men.
- “… also after that” : after the sons of God took daughters of men as wives…
any such “giants” offspring were completely destroyed in the flood. The giants
(literally in size) after the flood and the giants as the offspring of the sons
of God and daughters of men are not the same.
- “There were giants” – these are specifically the offspring from the union of
the sons of God and the daughters of men.
- In what sense were they “giants”? Literal “giants” (physical stature) is what
many imagined.
- Look at the text. “Giants” are the same as “mighty men which were of old, men
of renown.”
- In what sense were the offspring of the sons of God and the daughters of men
“giants... mighty men which were of old, men of renown.”
- Consider the effects
of those giants, “mighty men which were of old, men of renown” upon that whole
generation. What do you read?
Did the previous 15 century of human procreating activities produce any such
giants, “mighty men which were of old, men of renown.”
What were the giants MIGHTY and RENOWNED for?
See the effect described in Gen 6:5. That’s what they were mighty and renowned
for.
b. The 120 years:
Gen 6:3 “And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for
that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.”
- The 120 years has nothing to do with the lifespan or the shortening of
lifespan. The 120 years referred to the time remaining before the universal
flood would come. And Noah, the preacher of righteousness, preached 120 years,
warning that generation. Whatever happened to all those “sons of God” (imagined
to be GODLY MEN); all the godly descendant Seth? Were there no God’s children
in the line of Cain?
- Here is a passage on lifespan: Psalm 90:10 The days of our years are
threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years,
yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly
away.
c. Kindly note, “My
spirit shall not always strive with man…”
- With the divine restraint removed and the onslaught of the degenerate
influence of the “giants”, the outcome is stated in Gen 6:5 “And GOD saw that
the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the
thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.”
- This was exactly what the “sons of God” had purposed to achieve.
- Gen 6:8 “BUT Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.” Why? The Seed of the
Woman must be preserved to crush the head of the serpent. Satan lost again,
like in the garden of Eden. Satan 0 : God 2
d. Did you notice the statement, "for that he also is flesh" (i.e. for that he STILL is flesh)?
- What is the implication of these words?
5. The state of man is still the same, total
depravity Rom3:10-18. Man’s history is still repeated, in society and the
church, of cycles of revival and slow decline until God’s judgment came upon
them. Annihilation of Canaanite nations, delayed by 400 years after the promise given
to Abraham. Destruction of Jerusalem AD70 because of the Jewish treatment of
Jesus Christ and his disciples/Christians. The destruction of the Northern and
later Southern kingdoms after repeated warnings from God. These followed
similar patterns of impending God’s judgement upon mankind.
=======
You won’t say these things IF you have adequately understood this divine
diagnosis:
Gen 6:5 “And GOD saw that the wickedness of man ('āḏām) was great in the earth, and that every
imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.”
- Nothing you described above is anywhere near this divine diagnosis of the
moral state of the WHOLE HUMAN race in Gen 6 as the effect of the "sons of God" taking daughters of men as wives.
The history of Gen 6 has never been repeated. The only situation that will come
close to what we see in Gen 6 is the “little season” spoken of in Rev 20:3.
“And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon
him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should
be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.” Then the end
of the world.
As indicated before,
for 1500+ years, the procreation process of the fallen (and totally depraved) human
race went on naturally and normally. It was WHEN the sons of God came into the
picture, the universal moral corruption of the whole human race happened.
- The whole of mankind can only sink to such depth of moral degeneration and
corruption because of the powerful corrupting influence of the “giants, mighty
men which were of old, men of renown.”
6. Current state of vileness and sinfulness
is curbed/restraint due to Satan being bound. Still, we see sinfulness and
vileness committed behind curtains.
Satan was still free to roam after the flood, all the way to Christ’s coming. In
those thousands of years, the world DIDN’T become as bad as in Gen 6:5.
Satan being bound is said in relation to nations (ethnoi, people group) being
NOT deceived by him anymore; THAT IS, the redemptive purpose of God in the
gospel is access to God’s children among ALL ETHNIC NATIONS, PEOPLE GROUPS.
- It is true, wherever the gospel of Christ takes root, the sinfulness of man
is SOMEWHAT restrained.
- God’s children are called to be like salt and light in the rotting and dark
world.
- But natural man with the innate morality as moral creatures has ALWAYS been
the restraint.
2Tim 2:7 Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all
things.
============
In the first 15+ centuries, up to Noah’s time, what was happening in the
procreation activity of mankind?
Here are some possibilities.
1. Sons of men and daughters of men joined themselves as husbands and wives,
and they brought forth sons and daughters… (without no further distinction);
and their sons and daughters continue the procreation process?
- The simple and
plain command to them was “Be fruitful and multiply…”; no caveats or restrictions.
2. Sons of God and daughters of God (supposedly, descendants of Seth) joined themselves as husbands and wives,
and brought forth sons and daughters. All their sons and daughters were also
godly, and they continued to procreate among themselves.
- Q. Were there non-elect in the descendants of Seth? Then who did they marry?)
3. Sons of godless
men and daughters of godless men (supposedly descendants of Cain) joined themselves as husbands and wives, and
brought forth sons and daughters; all their sons and daughters were also
ungodly, and they continue the procreation activities..
(Were there children of God in the descendants of Cain? Then who did they
marry? )
With 2 and 3, there
was no intermarriage between the so-called ‘godly’ line and the ‘godless’ line.
There was a clear segregation. After 15+
centuries of clear segregation, intermarriage between “sons of God” and
“daughters of godless men” began to happen, leading to the universal moral
corruption in the time of Noah.
- This is the most popular explanation of what happened in Genesis 6 –
intermarriage between the sons of the godly line and daughters of the godless
line.
=========
post script
First, a
disclaimer:
I once warned and
rebuked a bible student, "Do not google your theology!"
However, out of
curiosity, I have just googled, "Which
theologians say 'the sons of God' in Gen 6 refer to angels?"
I'm a wee bit
surprised by what showed up. The following
appeared. I copied and pasted it below. Try to google it
yourself. Just sharing=
—————
(begin quote)
The interpretation
that "the sons of God" in Genesis 6 refers to fallen angels (or
angelic beings) was the dominant view in ancient Judaism and early
Christianity. Proponents argue that the Hebrew phrase beney ha-‘elohim refers
to angelic hosts, as in Job 1:6, and is supported by Peter and Jude.
The Gospel Coalition
+4
Key Historical and
Contemporary Proponents:
Early Church
Fathers: Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, Cyprian,
Ambrose, and Eusebius all held this position, often linking it to unnatural
unions.
Second Temple
Judaism/Other Ancient Sources: Flavius Josephus, Philo of Alexandria, and the
Book of Enoch (which calls them "Watchers") support this view.
Modern
Theologians/Scholars: James M. Hamilton Jr. and many commentators who
prioritize the New Testament references (1 Pet 3:18–22; 2 Pet 2:4–10; Jude 5–7)
as interpreting the Genesis 6 event as angelic rebellion.
The view relies on
the interpretation that 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6 refer back to this specific
incident, where angels left their proper dwelling.
(end quote)
=======
Second, a
confession.
I DID NOT form my
view by reading these things on the internet. I form my views by STUDYING the
BIBLE.
Way back in 1989,
while at London Theological Seminary, Dr Hywel Jones, the Principal, was the
lecturer in Biblical Theology. He gave an assignment: "Who are the sons of
God in Genesis 6?"
(My initial reaction
was, "What a silly topic; of course, the term refers to godly men of God.)
There were around 30
students, men of all ages in the whole student body. Less than a handful
concluded that the term refers to angels who have unlawfully assumed human
nature and reproduced themselves with the daughters of men, leading to the
absolute and universal moral degeneration/corruption of that generation, Gen
6:5.
There was a vigorous
discussion in class after our papers were marked, and returned.
I did remember Dr
Jones said, "Sing presented cogent reasons for his view."
In the marked paper,
among other grammatical corrections, he commented, "Logic has a force of
its own." I didn't quite understand
the comment, so I went to see him and inquired. He said, "You presented
your points with such tight logic that any logical person would be forced to
agree. To believe otherwise would be illogical..."
I readily own that this does not mean I am correct; I
may still be wrong. So, be so kind to show me the truth.
My apologies for the
ranting.
